From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Canadian republicanism is the appreciation amongst Canadians for the replacement of the Canadian system of constitutional monarchy with a preferred republican form of government – in the sense of the state headed by a president. These beliefs are expressed either individually – generally in academic circles – or through the country's one republican lobby group, Citizens for a Canadian Republic. Though they have no preferred model of republic, such individuals are driven by various factors: a perceived practicality of popular power being placed in the hands of an elected president, and a different manifestation of the modern nation and the independence it achieved in 1982. As with its political counterpart, strong republicanism is not a prevalent element of contemporary Canadian society. The movement's roots precede Canadian Confederation, and it has emerged from time to time in Canadian politics, but has not been a dominant force since the Rebellions of 1837, a continuation of which Canadian republicans consider their efforts to be.[1]

This questioning of the monarchy's role in Canadian identity arose as a part of wider cultural changes that followed the evolution of the British Empire into the Commonwealth of Nations, the rise of anti-establishmentism, the creation of multiculturalism as an official policy in Canada, and Quebec separatism began to blossom; the latter becoming the major impetus of political controversy around the Crown.[15] Quebec nationalists agitated for an independent Quebec republic – such as the Marxist form desired by the Front de libération du Québec[16] – and the monarchy was targeted as a symbol of anti-Anglophone demonstration,[17][18][19] notably when assassination threats were in 1964 made against Queen Elizabeth II and Quebecers turned their backs on her procession when she toured Quebec City that year.[20] In a 1970 speech to the Empire Club of Canada, Former Governor General Roland Michener summed up the contemporary arguments against the Crown: From its opponents, he said, came the claims that monarchies are unfashionable, republics – other than those with oppressive regimes – offer more freedom, people are given greater dignity from choosing their head of state, the monarchy is foreign and incompatible with Canada's multicultural society, and that there should be change for the sake of change alone.[21]

However, though it was later thought the Quiet Revolution and the period beyond should have inspired more republicanism amongst Canadians, they did not.[n 1] Reg Whitaker blamed this on a combination of Quebec nationalists having no interest in the monarchy (as full sovereignty and their own form of government was their ultimate goal) with the remainder of the population simultaneously struggling with "bilingualism, dualism, special status, distinct society, asymmetrical federalism, sovereignty-association, partnership, and so on." Even the rise in multi-ethnic immigration to Canada in the 1970s did not inspire any desires to alter or remove the role of the Crown in Canada, the ethno-cultural groups not wanting to push constitutional change over a matter they had little concern for.[22]

Instead, until the appointment of Stephen Harper as Prime Minister, successive governments made subtle efforts to diminish the stature of the Canadian monarchy[23] — as David Smith said: "the historic Crown with its anthem, emblems, and symbolism made accessible a past the government of the day rejected"[24] — though never, since the reaction to some of Pierre Trudeau's proposals for alterations to the monarchy and its role in Canada, publicly revealing their stances on the Crown.[25] All Canadians were being encouraged to "neglect, ignore, forget, reject, debase, suppress, even hate and certainly treat as foreign what their parents and grandparents, whether spiritual or blood, regarded as the basis of Canadian nationhood, autonomy and history," including the monarchy.[26]

The notion of a republic was raised publicly in the early 1990s, when Peter C. Newman wrote in Maclean's that the monarchy should be abolished in favour of a head of state "who would reflect our own, instead of imported, values." Then, in 1997, Deputy Prime MinisterJohn Manley echoed Newman when he expressed at the end of a television interview his opinion that Canada should abolish its monarchy, citing Australia's contemporary discussions around the Australian Crown.[27] Then, in December of the following year, the Prime Minister's press secretary, Peter Donolo, who also complained that the monarch made Canada appear as a "colonial outpost",[28] unaccountably announced through a media story that the Prime Minister's Office was considering the abolition of the monarchy as a millennium project, though no definitive plans had been made.[29] Donolo later supported Manley when,[n 2] on Victoria Day 2001, Manley said on CBC Radio that he believed that hereditary succession was outdated, and that the country's head of state should be elected.[32] Then, just prior to the Queen's pan-country tour to celebrate her Golden Jubilee the following year, Manley (at that point the designated minister in attendance for the sovereign's arrival in Ottawa) again stated his preference for a "wholly Canadian" institution to replace the present monarchy after the reign of the Queen;[33] he was rebuked by other Cabinet members, a former prime minister, and the Leader of the Opposition,[31] as well as a number of prominent journalists.[n 3] Then, in 2002, just prior to the Queen's pan-country tour to celebrate the Golden Jubilee, Manley (at that point the designated minister in attendance for the sovereign's arrival in Ottawa) stated: "I continue to think that for Canada after Queen Elizabeth, it should be time to consider a different institution for us, and personally I would prefer a wholly Canadian institution."[33]

Lawrence Martin called for Canada to become a republic in order to re-brand the nation and better its standings in the international market, he cited Sweden – a constitutional monarchy – as an example to be followed.[36]

Such calls issued in 2009, at the time of the tour of Canada by Prince Charles, Prince of Wales, and his wife, Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, were critiqued by Maclean's journalist Andrew Coyne when he wrote: "The [anti-monarchy] view is on parade again, in all its preening, modish finery, as it is on the occasion of any royal visit. It is a kind of custom, a ritual show of disloyalty as hoary in its way as any gathering of the Daughters of the Empire. Scarcely have the Queen or Prince Charles set foot on Canadian soil before they are greeted with a 21-gun salute of newspaper columns complaining at the outmodedness of it all. Here we are in the 21st century, and still a monarchy? Well, yes. And while we're at it, isn't democracy getting a little long in the tooth as well? How long has it been, 2,000 years? And that system of English common law, whew, isn't it time we replaced the liner on that?"[23]

Democratic principles and governmental role

Republicans view the Canadian monarchy as "outdated and irrelevant,"[12] and an undemocratic institution because the incumbent sovereign is neither elected and nor a citizen once on the throne; republicans will phrase this argument as "no Canadian citizen can become head of state," though this is technically not a valid claim. Without the democratic legitimacy they personally desire, some anti-monarchists refuse to recognize the authority of the Crown, expressing this through, for example, vandalism of royal symbols or ignoring the enforcement of traffic law by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.[14]

Advertisements

Colonial era and Confederation

Reformists began to emerge in the Canadian colonies during the early 1800s and by two decades into that century had begun to cohese into organized groups, such as the York Central Committee. The idea of political party was viewed by a number of British North Americans as an innovation of the United States, being "anti-British and of a republican tendency." Changes such as these were being brought about, colonists were warned, by "a few individuals, who unfortunately, are led by those, whose hostility to the British constitution is such, that they would sacrifice any and every thing to pull it down, in order that they might build up a Republic on its ruins."[39] It was believed that the persons agitating for republican change, and their supporters, were of American origin and had been taught to admire republican government as the best in the world and ridicule monarchism.[40]

After living in the US in order to avoid arrest in Canada, Mackenzie eventually became dissatisfied with the American republican system and gave up plans for revolution in the British North American provinces, though he theorized, near the end of his life, on Canadian annexation into the United States, should enough people in the former country become disillusioned with responsible government.[41] Similarly, by 1849, Papineau was advocating the absorption of the Province of Canada (formed in 1840) into the American republic to the south.[45] He echoed a significant minority of conservatives in Upper Canada who critiqued Canada's imitation of the British parliamentaryconstitutional monarchy as both too democratic and too tyrannical, theorizing that it simultaneously destroyed the independence of the appointed governor and legislative council, and further concentrated power in the Cabinet. Instead, these "republican conservatives" preferred the American federal-state system and the US constitution, seeing the American model of checks and balances as offering Canada a more fair and conservative form of democracy. They debated constitutional changes that included an elected governor, an elected legislative council, and a possible union with the US, within this republican framework.[46]

Post-Quebec sovereignty movement

The Parti Québécois rose to power in Quebec on the support of nationalists, and thereafter demonstrated an attitude towards the monarchy that ranged from hostility to indifference. Republican options were discussed following the sovereigntist Parti Québécois' (PQ) election to power in Quebec, but only specifically in relation to the province;[52] in February 1968, during the first meeting of the Constitutional Conference in Ottawa, delegates from Quebec indicated that a provincial president might suit the province better than the an appointed viceroy. Two years later, Parti Québécois members of the National Assembly refused to recite the constitutionally mandated Oath of Allegiance to the sovereign before taking their seats in the legislature,[52] and souveraigntistes complained about the Queen's role in officially opening the 1976 Montreal Olympics, with Quebec PremierRené Lévesque asking Elizabeth to turn down the advice of her federal prime minister, Pierre Trudeau, and not open the games.[52] This attitude led to the role of the monarchy in Canada coming under scrutiny during constitutional conventions in the lead up to the patriation of the Canadian constitution in 1982.[53][54] However, proposals for change were thwarted by the provinces, including Quebec.[15][54][55]

In contrast to monarchist arguments, those against the Crown assert that it is possible to have such an elected head of state be an apolitical individual, further theorizing that trends in transparency will make the result even more possible, and that he or she would not clash with the Prime Minister due to possible differences in the selection process for each office, though some desire an empowered chief executive who could hold the Cabinet in check. Others feel an appointed Canadian president would be more democratic than the Crown.[3] The range of often contradictory proposals highlights the fact that Canadian republicans are not fully united on what sort of republican form of government they believe the nation should adopt. The Westminster-style parliamentary republican model, which is advocated by other Commonwealth republican movements, has been embraced by Citizens for a Canadian Republic as the preferred model for Canada.

The truth is that the monarchy stands for much that has held Canada back. It embodies the triumph of inheritance over merit, of blood over brains, of mindless ritual over innovation. The monarchy reminds us to defer to authority and remember our place. In Quebec, the Royals are regarded as an insult.[56]

Towards that end, Citizens for a Canadian Republic proposed in March 2004 that the federal viceroy be made an elected position, as a first step towards some form of republic. As the normal channels of appointment would follow after the election, no constitutional reform would be necessary. However, as monarchists point out, the scheme does not take into consideration any provincial input, especially concerning the relationship between the provincial and federal Crowns, and thus the Lieutenant Governors; an issue that would weigh heavily in any constitutional debate on the Crown, regardless of the selection process of the Governor General. At approximately the same time, the editors of The Globe and Mail began calling for the Governor General to be made head of state under the guise of "patriating the monarchy", and arguing that Canada could rid itself of its Crown without becoming a republic,[37] and backing their journalist Jeffrey Simpson's preference for the Companions of the Order of Canada to choose the head of state in a Canadian republic.[38] Then, some weeks later, Quebec sovereignty again collided with the monarchy, when Quebec separatists threatened to mount demonstrations should the Queen be in attendance at the ceremonies for the 400th anniversary of the founding of Quebec City; Mario Beaulieu, Vice-President of the Société Saint-Jean Baptiste announced that the Queen's presence would be a catalyst for action, saying: "You can be sure that people will demonstrate in protest... We are celebrating the foundation of New France, not its conquest. The monarchy remains a symbol of imperialism and colonialism. Her presence will not be welcomed", and Gérald Larose, president of the Quebec Sovereignty Council, stated that the monarchy was "the most despicable, appalling, anti-democratic, imperial, colonial symbol against which all social and individuals rights were obtained through the course of history."[57]

Activities

As abolition of the monarchy would require a constitutional amendment made only after the achievement of unanimous consent amongst the federal parliament and all ten provincial legislatures, republicans face difficulty in achieving their goal.[58] Further, though anti-monarchists have pointed to Ireland and India as models that could be adapted to Canada, no specific form of republic or selection method for a president has been decided on,[59] and the Canadian populace remains largely indifferent to the issue.[60]

One constitutional scholar, Ted McWhinney, has argued that Canada can become a republic upon the demise of the current Queen by not proclaiming a successor; according to McWhinney, this would be a way for the constitution to evolve "more subtly and by indirection, through creating new glosses on the Law of the Constitution as written, without formally amending it."[64] However, Ian Holloway, Dean of Law at the University of Western Ontario, criticised this proposal for its ignorance of provincial input, and opined that its implementation "would be contrary to the plain purpose of those who framed our system of government."[65]

Notes

^ Even prominent calls for a republic, such as those issued by the Toronto Star editorial board in the centennial year of Confederation, did not inspire action amongst the wider populace. As put by Reg Whitaker: "In the 1960s, in the first fine, careless rapture of bilingualism and biculturalism, an end to the monarchy might have become a shared program between Quebec nationalists and Canadian dualists. It never happened."[22]

^ Donolo wrote in Maclean's that "it's the institution of the monarchy that is incompatible with the values of a modern, democratic, pluralistic state."[30][31]